JB McGovern

[wsmorrison]

I don't know why you continued the discussion in Pat's thread on this, but I'll answer here anyway.  Maybe you liked my arguments to well on the other  

"You don't think Ross & Associates was a powerhouse? I disagree."

I think Ross and Associates was a powerhouse.  I didn't say Ross wasn't great.  He is.  But I do not, as yet, see evidence that Ross and McGovern wasa powerhouse due to any added value by McGovern.

What specific added value did McGovern provide at Rolling Rock, Sunnybrook (a course vastly redesigned by Flynn (1928?) prior to their move and course design by Gordons in 1956--how good could the 1921 Ross version have been?), Hartford and Raleigh.  If you cannot say, you cannot attribute credit to him, now can you?

Let me be clear here, Tom.  I use McGovern's solo work to consider his architectural merits.  This completely factors out Ross and other associates.  Don't you see the value of this line of thought?  His work at Overbrook (built by Gordon) stinks.  His work at Llanerch is pedestrian.  I'd be glad to consider other solo works to determine his status as rival to Flynn.  Fact is, he was never a rival but part of a rival Ross team.  

If you study the head-to-head competition, I think you'll find Ross lost out to Flynn more than Flynn lost out to Ross.  for gosh sakes, Tom.  Ross had an office in the Philadelphia suburbs and hardly did any work here at all.  What's that all about?  He didn't get any of the plum jobs except for Aronimink and in my mind the reputation isn't well correlated to the work.  In fact, in 1939 Aronimink wasn't considered as hard as a number of courses in the district, including Merion, Rolling Green and Philadelphia CC Spring Mill course.  I have to look at the routing map in the clubhouse, but as I recall Aronimink was about 6400 yards when it first opened.

Aronimink           6773    73
PCC Spring Mill    6786    71
Philmont North    6426    70
Merion East        6694    70
Whitemarsh        6635    72
Manufacturers     6391    71
Torresdale          6190    72
Overbrook          6181     71
North Hills          6489     71
Rolling Green      6470     71

I do like St. David's by the way and from what little I know, Torresdale Frankford is a fine second-tier course in the area (that doesn't mean it isn't a good course, there's just so much competition).

Tom Paul graded McGovern on his own.  Not the 30 years of assistance, of which it may not be possible to discern what specifically McGovern did.   You attribute greatness by association.  In that case, Gordon, Lawrence and Wilson would be great.  They are not.  But they are all better than McGovern.  

Ross was great, I doubt McGovern had much to do with that.  The proof is there but you don't see it.  Oh well, I tried.

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
As you say Flynn got more work than Ross in the Philly area.  I think it would be a fair statement to say that you and TE have a very strong bias towards Flynn understandably so.  Personally, I like his work more than I do Ross.  Flynn probably had a higher percentage of good work than Ross but both were good and I also think Wilson was very good.  But I just can't see even discussing McGovern....just not enough facts to have a decent argument. IMO  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Aronimink was 6600 yards, par 70.

You want to make this a Flynn vs Ross...this some how helps make your point about McGovern? That is idiotic, Ross and Flynn were two of the greats. They were also two of the busiest in the 1920's, and no doubt competed for work. Who won more of those competitions...I don't know, does it matter? Some times all it takes is one loss to piss one or the other off.

Hartford and Raliegh reportedly were solo efforts (or nearly solo) by McGovern at the end of Ross's career. By all reports, both were excellent designs.

Donald Ross Associates was made up of Ross, Hatch and McGovern. There have been very few design firms in history that have had a longer association, and very few design firms who have produced a greater number of first rate golf courses. Who deserves credit for what is hard to say, but trying to separate McGovern or Hatch from this excellent work is  also a big mistake in my opinion.

Judging McGovern's three decade career based upon one mediocre golf course is frivolous. Dick Allen was right. You are a tough crowd in Philly.

[wsmorrison]

Mike Y,

Agreed on all counts.  McGovern hardly rates any consideration, yet Tom MacWood believes otherwise.

Tom MacWood,

I don't want to make this a Flynn-Ross, I see why you are confused.  I mentioned Flynn because he competed with Ross in Philadelphia--where Ross had one of a few offices.  How well did Ross-McGovern compete in the district?  This is a reflection on the man you say was part of a powerhouse duo--in McGovern's backyard.  The only significant project was awarded to Ross was Aronimink and McGovern was a member.  This all speaks for itself, no need for me to add anything.  You interpret it anyway you like.  Your mind is already made up so what's the use in letting facts get in the way.


"Hartford and Raliegh reportedly were solo efforts (or nearly solo) by McGovern at the end of Ross's career. By all reports, both were excellent designs."

I don't know anything about these courses but I will try and find some information out of curiousity.  Whose reports do you accept that they are excellent designs and reportedly solo or nearly solo efforts by McGovern?  You must be convinced or you'd see for yourself, but then that might overturn your made up mind.

"Who deserves credit for what is hard to say, but trying to separate McGovern or Hatch from this excellent work is  also a big mistake in my opinion. "

I disagree.

I don't know how to judge McGovern's career outside his solo efforts (don't forget the redesigns at Gulph Mills and Llanerch--easy for you to omit since it strengthens your argument in your mind).  If we don't know what he did, how can we judge his contributions?

Like Mike, I think it a waste of time to discuss McGovern.  He was a loyal and lengthy assistant to one of the game's great architects.  Other assistants went on to far more successful careers.  

However, I've since looked at McGovern's plans for an additional nine holes at Irondequoit (1950) and they look pretty good.  They look a lot like Ross and Ross's name is on the plan as architect with McGovern as associate.  Marketing or reality?  I'm not sure.

His plans (1949) for Blue Springs Farms in Hamilton (CA or GA?) look to be fairly interesting with some superb drawings.  I don't think this course was built and I have no other information available to me (except Cornish and Whitten and I don't want to be scolded by you for referring to that) unless perhaps it was renamed Calloway Gardens in GA and finished a year after his death in 1952.

The redesign proposals at Huntingdon Valley that have Ross and McGovern's names on it contain two good ideas that were implemented (expand 13 green in front left) and lengthen 15 (although the necessary redesign of 14 green was not very good).  The remainder were very poor in my opinion and thankfully not done.

Again, from what I've seen in the district on four courses (Overbrook, Llanerch, Huntingdon Valley and Gulph Mills) and judging from his long association with Ross, the solo efforts are mediocre and a far cry from other architects' associates who would later go on their own.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
Aronimink was 6600 yards, par 70."

When was this, at opening?  

The 1939 yardage and par I quoted was from a January 4, 1939 article in the Evening Public Ledger by Mort Fetterolf, Jr. about the Spring Mill Course and other Philadelphia courses.  The article was partly written as a result of the par change at PCC from 71 to 69 for the US Open.

I think you'll see that the yardage changed several times over the years at Aronimink.  Par may have as well.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
The Aronimink yardage and par is from 1930.

If you are going to characterize McGovern as a poor architect or a grade C architect, I hope you are basing it upon more than Overbrook. Its obvious you don't have any information on his two decade plus contribution to Ross & Assosiates...it appears no information equates to no postive contribution. Weird logic, but it reminds me of your position regarding icons like Crump and Wilson, so its not surprising. I guess when you have an emotional investment in these things...

Regarding Harford and Raleigh the source was Brad Klein.

You don't think Hatch and McGovern should be given their due for the work of Ross and Assosiates? What's your opinion of Wendel Miller, Robert Hunter, Mic Morcom and Billy Bell?

[Willie_Dow]

Look Tom Mac !  We've been around here for a long time.  Let's get together before we disintergrade.  Tom, you come to Philly this fall, and stay here in Haverford - close to Merion, as Jeff Mingay and his Dad did some years ago - through this web - which he earned by his input during the early years - and learn a little about this area.

Willie

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Look Tom Mac !  We've been around here for a long time.  Let's get together before we disintergrade.  Tom, you come to Philly this fall, and stay here in Haverford - close to Merion, as Jeff Mingay and his Dad did some years ago - through this web - which he earned by his input during the early years - and learn a little about this area.

Willie

Willie,

  Just tell Wayne and Tom not to invite him to the diner.  

[T_MacWood]

Willie
Thanks for the kind offer. Every new experience brings a new perspective and appreciation. You should be very proud of your Philly golf heritage, but your Philly golf icons were humans, with strengths and weaknesses. Donald Ross, Tom Simpson and Alister MacKenzie were not perfect, in fact far from it, why should Flynn, Wilson and Crump be perfect? Its frankly more interesting when we find out they are just regular guys...we can relate.

If Flynn (Flynn's daughter) says McGovern is a chump, why do we have to assume McGovern was a chump. If it turns out McGovern was a formidable rival (and not a maverick hack), does that take anything away from Flynn's reputation? No. Tom Paul will tell you and anyone who will listen, that I am off my rocker and not credible, should we minimize his positive contributions if he might be wrong about me?

If Crump took his own life, does it lessen his contribution to Pine Valley. Does the fact that Wilson sought the expertise of Macdonald and Whigham lessen or enhance the history of Merion?

The truth is always more interesting than our perceptions of what the truth should be.

[Forrest Richardson]

McGovern did very little on his own — I believe that to be a correct statement...?

I am familiar with only one of his courses, the original 9-holes at Callaway Gardens near Atlanta. The out nine of the Lake Course there is very Ross-like, but with a twist. While I would not call it a grand design, it is certainly worthy and quite interesting.

I was told by Bo Callaway that his father — Cason Callaway — was a good friend of J.B.'s, and that the men had great conversations about politics and golf. Bo recalls meeting J.B., but there was little he reported to me about the man othre than the friendship with his father, Bo.

I recall that McGovern died rather soon after his carred began after Ross. Is that correct?

[wsmorrison]

Forest,

Ross died in 1948 and McGovern in 1951.

Tom MacWood,

"If you are going to characterize McGovern as a poor architect or a grade C architect, I hope you are basing it upon more than Overbrook."

For the last time, I am also considering his work and proposed work at  Llanerch, Gulph Mills and Huntingdon Valley.  I prefer to consider his solo efforts.  I've mentioned these a number of times.  How many more before it sinks in?  If something doesn't fit your results you don't regard it.  I've even given some credit to his efforts at Blue Springs Farms and to a lesser degree Irondiquoit.  I have considered a lot more than Overbrook.  You don't see it because it doesn't support your conclusions and belittlements.

"Its obvious you don't have any information on his two decade plus contribution to Ross & Assosiates"

It is obvious because I admitted as much.  What information do you have related to his specific contributions?  If you don't know then what exactly are you praising him for?

"it appears no information equates to no postive contribution"

More faulty analysis on your part.  No information equates to reserved comments.  You should try that starting point sometime then you won't jump to conclusions and fit the facts to suit your already made up mind.

"Weird logic, but it reminds me of your position regarding icons like Crump and Wilson, so its not surprising."

"If Crump took his own life, does it lessen his contribution to Pine Valley."

Logic is not an ability you demonstrate very often.  I don't have iconic feelings for either Crump or Wilson.  You were the one that first surmised that Crump's death enhanced his perceived contribution at Pine Valley at the expense of Colt.  Remember?  This without ever being there to study and ascertain this club conspiracy that never did exist.  If you had visited or spoken to enough members you would realize that if anything they overestimated how much Colt did.  

As for Wilson.  Go ahead and make those Bob Beamonesque leaps of faith in determining how much Macdonald and Whigham contributed to Merion.  Nobody denies that Mcd and W were not great helps in pointing out design features and what courses to see in the UK.  They were a big help in general concepts, that is clear.  You went on to extrapolate that and gave design credit to these two.  Again, you set a world record in leaping to conclusions.

If you don't know by now, Tom and I with a great deal of cooperation with the club have revised many notions about the architectural history of Merion East and West, this at the expense of Wilson's legacy.  Is this the way we treat him as an icon?  We care about the truth, not about protecting legendary status.  You are completely over the line when you accuse us of this.  

Bill Dow knows more about Merion, Wilson,Flynn and Valentine than you do.  He's forgotten more than you'll ever know.  Ask him if we are biased in our efforts.  If I were you, I'd be careful about the limbs you climb out on.  Scurry back into that tower of yours or climb down and come visit and know the truth.  But stop making a stink about something you really don't know anything about--except what you read in your dusty magazines.

And for this, you defend yourself by saying that we are ignoring truth to defend our turf and our golfing roots.  Don't be so foolish--or worse.  We're defending logic and facts in the face of your outrageous conclusions.  Which you've backed off from in case you've forgotten (regarding conclusions you've made about Hutchinson and a PVGC conspiracy to praise Crump at the expense of Colt).

"The truth is always more interesting than our perceptions of what the truth should be."

I hope you understand truth better than you let on.

Who said Crump, Wilson and Flynn were perfect?  There you go making us seem like we're making outrageous claims in order to bolster your own via such deflections of attention.  I am tired of your tricks and ploys.  I've never met anyone who knows they are always right when proven so wrong.  We recognize when we've been wrong (Crump's death) and we admit it.  You are incapable.

[T_MacWood]

"You don't see it because it doesn't support your conclusions and belittlements."

Wayne
What conclusion? I haven't the foggiest idea if McGovern was a good, great or terrible architect. My point has always been...one should not judge a thirty year career by a single golf course (or one course and three proposed redesigns). I also don't believe his long time association with Ross should be disregarded.

I spoke to David Gordon, whose father worked with both Flynn and JB, and he told me his father felt McGovern was a very good architect.

[T_MacWood]

"If you had visited or spoken to enough members you would realize that if anything they overestimated how much Colt did."

Oh really? All I know is the club histories don't really support your notion that they overestimated anyting about Colt....are you saying he shouldn't even given credit for the 5th?  

"Nobody denies that Mcd and W were not great helps in pointing out design features and what courses to see in the UK.  They were a big help in general concepts, that is clear.  You went on to extrapolate that and gave design credit to these two.  Again, you set a world record in leaping to conclusions."

Your memory is a bit fuzzy. I never claimed they should be given co-design credit, I was simply making the point they assisted the committee on the ground during those early stages (and that a number of their trademark ideas showed up in that early layout)....if you recall, you fought me over what was, and still is, a relatively benign claim IMO.

[wsmorrison]

If you visited and spoke to the members is a lot different an act than reading the club histories.  

"All I know is the club histories don't really support your notion that they overestimated anyting about Colt....are you saying he shouldn't even given credit for the 5th?  "

What have I ever said about the 5th?  I know an early iteration had the green in a different spot.  I can't recall whether it was a Crump or Colt design plan.  I know I didn't ever try and take credit away from Colt for anything, least of all the 5th.  I simply never did see, as you did, the circumstances of Crump's death having anything to do with architectural attribution favorable to Crump and against Colt.

What trademark designs of Macdonald and Whigham are found at Merion?  The Redan?  Did they redesign the 15th at North Berwick?  If the green was a Redan in the beginning, it was altered, at least before the 1924 Amateur.  The front of 17 as a Valley of Sin.  Is that a Macdonald-Whigham trademark?  Did they redesign the last at The Old Course?

I am finished with this thread.  Carry on my good MacWood.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"If you look at just the courses in Pa and few surrounding states (which no doubt only scratches the surfaces of projects he assisted Ross with) it includes Torresdale-Frankford, St. Davids, Cedarbrook, Gulph Mills, Kahkwa, Mountain Ridge, Montclair, and Plainfield. The guy assisted Ross for three decades, I reckon he was involved in a number of better than poor or grade-C (as TE describe's him) projects.

I have absolutley no problem with you bringing to light that Flynn didn't like McGovern, and that he allegedly felt he did poor work. I find it very interesting, but based on the work the JBM and Ross did in Pennsylvania alone, how can you say that it is nothing more than professional jousting? It certainly wasn't based on the one course you cite as proof--Overbrook. Overbrook was built after Flynn's death; I believe by Flynn's associate Gordon."

Tom MacW:

If we're going to have as in-depth a discussion on here about McGovern as we might like you pretty much need to quote accurately what's been said on here and what the facts are.

I never said that the projects you noted above were "grade C". All I said was McGovern's reputation as an architect is sort of Grade C around here. A lot of that obviously has to do with his single solo design and course---OVERBROOK---a course you assign above to William Gordon who was William Flynn's long-time primary foreman. Overbrook is McGovern's course, not Gordon's.

At GMGC McGovern was apparently working on his own in whatever redesign projects he had there. There's no evidence at all that Donald Ross had a thing to do with it. And what McGovern did there has never been considered very good. If you want to call that "character assasination", I guess that's  your perogative.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"Willie
Thanks for the kind offer. Every new experience brings a new perspective and appreciation. You should be very proud of your Philly golf heritage, but your Philly golf icons were humans, with strengths and weaknesses. Donald Ross, Tom Simpson and Alister MacKenzie were not perfect, in fact far from it, why should Flynn, Wilson and Crump be perfect? Its frankly more interesting when we find out they are just regular guys...we can relate.

If Flynn (Flynn's daughter) says McGovern is a chump, why do we have to assume McGovern was a chump. If it turns out McGovern was a formidable rival (and not a maverick hack), does that take anything away from Flynn's reputation? No. Tom Paul will tell you and anyone who will listen, that I am off my rocker and not credible, should we minimize his positive contributions if he might be wrong about me?

If Crump took his own life, does it lessen his contribution to Pine Valley. Does the fact that Wilson sought the expertise of Macdonald and Whigham lessen or enhance the history of Merion?

The truth is always more interesting than our perceptions of what the truth should be."

Tom MacWood:

That's a classic Tom MacWood post and it's real bullshit and extremely distorting.

For some truly unknow reasons you seem to think that your research is uncovering never realized "Truths" about Philadelphia golf architecture and Philadelphia golf architects and that the perceptions of Philadelphia golf architecture and Philadelphia golf architects has been distorted around here.

Nothing could be further from the truth and I really do hope you'd stop making such bullshit implications about the way Philadelphia golfers, including me, look at both subjects.

It really does gall me that you think somehow that your producing of old magazine and newspaper articles and photographs is finally proving something to us here in Philadelphia. Don't you realize we here in Philadelphia have seen all that material at one time or another? Much of it was written here anyway. Do you think no one ever read it other than you?

Nobody on here said Crump was perfect, and certainly not me. All I've ever done on here is closely analyze through all the material that's availabe and through the creation of certain timelines what exactly Crump did do at Pine Valley. Almost all that information has been posted on here and it's obviously what you've availed yourself of as well to come to some of the recent conclusions I hope you have regarding Colt's contributions at Pine Valley as well as Crump's.

Previous to that it certainly appears that both you and Paul Turner were on this rather ridiculous campaign to try to prove that PVGC (and Philadelphia golf) chose to denigrate or minimize Colt to glorify Crump. That is simply not true, my friend, and it never was. You pretty much need to come here and understand this area to understand that because you certainly can't do it from Ohio without ever being here or spending a good deal of time at these clubs and amongst these memberships.

We're not denying that Macdonald and Whigam may've come to Merion East and spoken with Wilson et al. All we've done is look at all the available evidence of what Wilson et al reported Macdonald did help them with. We tend not to just blatantly speculate on things that were never mentioned.

When it comes to McGovern you're implications about what we've said is no different. We reported what Flynn said about him which is interesting. What none of us know is why he said it. McGovern may've been a competent foreman for Ross for decades but that does not mean that he was a great architect. The only way to evaluate that is to look at what McGovern did on his own which is precisely what we are doing. It's a course I know very well and no one around here things it was, is or ever has been any great shakes.

The work McGovern did at GMGC was not very good either and thankfully Gil Hanse removed most of it.

[TEPaul]

Was MCGovern a good foreman for Ross? He may've been, probably was or one might wonder why Ross kept him so long. One of the things a good foreman does, at least as we firmly believe William Flynn felt about it, is to carry out well the design instructions of the architect of record. God knows Ross's hole by hole drawings and instructions on Aronimink were detailed enough to follow to get what they called for on the ground (I reread all Ross's hole by hole grid drawings and text instructions on Aronimink last night on the plane home and they are very comprehensive).

Perhaps you believe in this notion of "regional interest"---eg meaning that local crews perhaps with the inspiration and instructions of local foremen creates more interesting golf architecture than does the drawings and instructions of the architect of Record but we surely do know that William Flynn did not feel that way and that's precisely the reason a young Dick Wilson infuriated he and Toomey and their primary foreman William Gordon. This does not mean they did not think Dick Wilson may've had real architectural talent but there's no question they all did expect him to follow their drawings and instructions in the field.

You may feel that it's more interesting in the end if local foremen and crews get into doing their own thing----that is an interesting point and an interesting outlook, and not one I'd disagree with, but we're trying to look at this subject from the point of view of various golf clubs and from the point of view of the architects of Record.

There is no question whatsoever, in my mind, that you feel the way you probably do about this subject of "regional interest" of perhaps the liberties local foremen and local crews take because of your interest in the A/C Movement where that kind of thing is actually the theme of it all.

I have no problem with that outlook at all, matter of fact I was explaining to Ran Morrissett yesterday that I think it is an interesting outlook and one that sort of identifies most of the way you tend to think about golf architecture---certainly as to how it might pertain to the theme of the A/C Movement. I have no problem with that, but I do realize that other architects and other clubs may not have always shared that feeling. What they often wanted was the product of the architect of Record not his foreman or his crews.

At least that's clearly the way Toomey and Flynn felt about it and we believe there was a specific and interesting reason why. Perhaps Ross was the same and perhaps he wasn't. But if he wasn't on a project like Aronimink's I just can't imagine why he went to all the trouble to draw such detailed hole by hole drawings with comprehensive text instructions.

Very ironically, an architect who believes in a certain amount of regional or local or "craftman's interest" both back then as well as in restoration today is Ron Prichard. And if you have some problem with that now I would feel that was even more ironic still!  

[T_MacWood]

“Few realize the important role of the contractor. In my opinion it is just as important to employ a contractor who specializes in this type of work, as it is a golf course architect. The planning and construction of a golf course cannot be compared with the planning of a railway or road. In the latter the contractor must never indulge in any form of artistic license…Not so in the case of golf course contractor. From an artistic point of view, which is all important, every thing depends on whether or not the course contractor and his foremen have a true understanding of how Nature works in fashioning a hill, a hollow or a slope.”

TE
That was Tom Simpson's view on artistic liscence, my impression is that MacKenzie had a similar philosophy...that attitude might explain why those two produced some of the most aesthetically appealing results.

That being said, I don't know if Ross allowed his associates than kind of leaway, based on a comparison of his detailed plans and the finished courses, my guess is most were constructed as planned.

Your conjecture that McGovern (on his own) deviated from Ross's plan does not make sense, especially when you consider the magnitude of the change and the fact that Ross was on the ground during construtction. It is more likely the preliminary field sketches were later altered by Ross when the plans were formalized.  Its too bad those formalized plans were never found.

[TEPaul]

"Your conjecture that McGovern (on his own) deviated from Ross's plan does not make sense, especially when you consider the magnitude of the change and the fact that Ross was on the ground during construtction. It is more likely the preliminary field sketches were later altered by Ross when the plans were formalized.  Its too bad those formalized plans were never found."

Tom MacWood:

As perhaps you haven't quite figured out after all this time that isn't exactly my conjecture, as you constantly seem to like to claim. The story I've always told on this website about the bunker project at Aronimink is not my story, it's Ron Prichard's and the club's. Unlike you, I happened to be out there with both a number of times before and during that project (I live about 3 miles from Aronimink).

You're certainly entitled to your own opinions any time you have them but I tend to put a bit more stock in someone who's been doing restorations for 3o years, and primarily Ross restorations and who knows Aronimink intimately rather than someone who's never even been there and who's never done a Ross restoration.

But having said that your guess as to why those bunkers were changed into multi-sets (now proven to have been done during original construction) from Ross's own detailed drawings and text instructions is certainly no better than Prichard's or the club's (or mine). The fact is to date not a single trace of any altered plans on the part of Donald Ross have ever been found nor does anyone have any idea if they ever existed in the first place.

Due to this on-going discussion it's become fairly apparent that Ron Prichard did feel or does feel that those multi-set bunkers may've been some stylistic expression of J.B. McGovern's project foremanship, while Ron Forse (and Jim Nagel) feel it may've been something Ross himself did too because of evidence of that kind of thing in both Michigan and I think Maine (where McGovern may not have been).

Whatever happened (now that we are sure when it happened at Aronimink) Ron Prichard does feel that basically the larger bunkers of Ross's Aronimink drawings were basically just divided (divisions created) basically in the same place Ross's drawings called for singles.

You may think the sets of bunkers in the same places are better looking than the bigger single bunkers in the same places but it seems Ron feels the bigger single bunkers look more fearsome simply because they'd seem bigger to the golfer.

To each his own preference, I suppose. I could understand your arguement that a mistake was made with the bunker restoration at Aronimink if those Ross drawings did not exist or if they were never found and certainly if "alteration drawings" into multi-sets were found. But the point is that's not the way it was. They had those drawings and text instructions from Ross and they went with them.

And of course in the end the restoration project they way it was done has been considered a success. It will be interesting to see what the club thinks about all this (if anything) after I found (and Wayne went down and analylized)that Dallin aerials do exist at the Hagley from May 1926 to May 1929 a few of which apparently show those same multi-sets as on the 1939 aerial (there's an aerial gap from Dallin between 1929 and 1939).

I suppose if the club and those who play the course care as much about this issue as you seem to they could always do what Ron thought happened which was to basically put divisions into those big single bunkers Ross drew and essentially make them into the multi-sets we now see on the 1929 and 1939 aerials that number about 200 instead of the 80-90 that are on Ross's drawings.

I did ask Ron yesterday why he didn't find those earlier aerials at the Hagley. He said they thought they might have some about five years ago but when he went down there they couldn't find them. Wayne said they had a hard time finding them last week (probably because Barb Hall was off that day).

[Mike_Cirba]

Interesting...

If nothing else, this discovery should help put the final nails into the "Ross-type-bunker" coffin.  Ross did some of the most varied bunker styles of any architect in history, by design...not by accident.

And here I was ready to blame that sell-out Tillinghast!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If Ross was on site during construction, why was he so surprised with the finished product ?

Does anyone know the exact dates that Ross was at Aronomink during construction ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Interesting...

If nothing else, this discovery should help put the final nails into the "Ross-type-bunker" coffin.  Ross did some of the most varied bunker styles of any architect in history, by design...not by accident.

And here I was ready to blame that sell-out Tillinghast!  


Mike Cirba,

That's not true.

It only narrows our focus.

POINT A:
We know what Ross's detailed hole sketches look like.
POINT B:
We know what the golf course looked like around opening day vis a vis the photos that TEPaul and Wayne discovered.

But, we don't know how or why there was a deviation from Point A to Point B.

It could have been Ross.
It could have been McGovern
It could have been a third party
It could have been the club
It could have been the Superintendent
It could have been a combination of any of the above.


Until you know that answer, the more interesting dilema exists.

If you went back in time five (5) years ago, and were sitting in the committee meeting at Aronomink and discussing a restoration.

Would the committee opt to restore to Ross's certified hole by hole sketches ?

Or, would the committee opt to restore the golf course to the "as built" photos ?

Or, would the committee be divided,

Or would the committee want to know how the golf course evolved from Point A above to Point B above before embarking upon any restoration attempt ?[/color]

Bob Huntley,

This is for YOU  [/color]

[TEPaul]

"Does anyone know the exact dates that Ross was at Aronomink during construction ?"


Pat:

I don't know but I think Ron Forse thinks he might have some idea. Don't really know what he's using though.

Why those bunkers may've been altered or basically broken into 2s and 3s from how they appear on Ross's drawings (and text instructions) may be interesting as all hell to Tom MacWood and maybe even some of us but I would bet some pretty good money that if Ross was even aware of the alteration it may've been something that didn't involve the "Federal Case" we on here have made out of it.

Perhaps it was just something like foreman McGovern (a club member) telegraphing, or calling or just asking Ross;

"Hey, Don, do you mind if I break those singles on your plans up into sets of 2s and 3s?"

Maybe Don said;

"Hey J.B., you're a member here, right? You'll be playing this place, not me, so go for it!"

And J.B said:

"Thanks Donnie Boy, that's great, and the better news is we'll be creating some mystery for some architect and the club and some over-zealous golf analyst around 2000 who thinks this is some expression of that weird A/C Movement theme by doing it this way."

(It's also possible that J.B asked Donnie Boy if he could take this incredible architectural liberty and he thought Ross said OK when in fact he may not have even heard him ask).  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

My point is that Ross's own writings describe a veritable plethora of bunkering styles he dabbled in.  

The original Seminole bunkers were much different from what has become the sterotypical look of Ross.  SO were Oakland Hills, and a host of others.  

Aronimink was not a small job for Ross.  

At this point, he knew he was competing in the region with PV, Merion, and Flynn's work.  

It would not surprise me in the least to learn that Ross thought that the clustering effect on the bunkers would be something visually unique in the region.  

We'll probably never learn for certain, but we do know now that the bunkers were clustered from the get-go, and we do know that Ross was onsite during construction.  

We also probably know that McGovern didn't deviate to such a "creative extent" at any other Ross course he worked on, don't we?

The circumstantial evidence becomes pretty convincing at this point, at least to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I think all of your points are PURE speculation.

Rather than speculate, let's try to ascertain how the course went from point A to point B.

If that information is never revealed, then I pose the question.

To which iteration do you restore the golf course ?